Outcast_Searcher wrote:If it's re technology changing (i.e. EV's meaning we don't NEED anywhere near so much within 2 to 3 decades), then that makes ALL the difference. One causes financial havoc and unaffordability, and the other helps the planet and gives consumers another choice (better, to the extent they choose it). Peak demand is the polar opposite of peak supply.

I don't see EVs helping the planet. Not driving helps the planet.

Peak oil dynamics does not care so much about peak demand or peak supply. They influence each other and are related. They are not opposites in this respect. We see what this demand shock is doing currently so try to tell me this will not hammer supply potential. Once supply potential is damaged then demand will be restrained on the way back up. EVs are just a side show that are caught in the middle. EVs require a healthy economy and what is going on is not at all healthy so EVs are not going to save the day. EVs are going to suffer like so many other industries.

I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

I find it annoying that part 14 of this thread was locked in the middle of one of it's busiest days and a page and a half can't be quoted or commented on. Is there some structural reason why locking a busy thread can't be locked at two days previous to leave current posts available for quoting and comment?

But in the REAL world, people are going to drive, where mass transit isn't widely available and efficient, which is the case in a huge proportion of the US. GIven how the NYC subways (don't) work, it actually might be true for pretty much all the US.

EV's are better for the planet than ICE's over their life cycle, for similar sized vehicles, like it or not.

Everyone isn't going to give up driving until forced to, like it or not. People even have lots of cars in Western Europe, and its mass transit system is MUCH MUCH better than that in the US.

IF "running out of oil" becomes a serious problem, then having an alternative which uses FAR LESS oil over the course of its lifecycle (i.e. zero for BEV's and much less for HEV's and PHEV's, re propelling the vehicle), then it WILL greatly help relieve that problem -- again, whether you like it or not.

BTW, I'm not at all convinced we're "running out of oil" any time soon, though declining relative demand (through better technology) is going to be a big part of that -- likely more so than endlessly increasing supply -- in my opinion.

Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.

copious.abundance wrote:Have their ever been any cornies here who thought the price of oil would someday go negative?

Hell, not even I ever thought that would happen. Until today I didn't even think it was possible.

Abundance aplenty!

You're just poking fun at the constant short term oil date pickers, right? Because this whole thing is a market quirk due to much of the global economy shutting down, NOTHING fundamental about abundance.

Of course, if we get to be something like 80% or more of new cars are BEV's in 30 years, THAT will do something fundamental about relative oil abundance for a long time.

Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.

Too bad crude oil is so expensive to store. To those with the capital and the storage infrastructure, there is a lot of potential money to be made in the coming months. JoeSixPack isn't going to be able to just buy some barrels and store them in his garage though, given risks such as hydrogen sulfide poisoning and fire. But it won't stop people from trying.

She's a representative sample of present-day "normies" within the U.S. Relative abundance has led to this. These are the sorts of people that go on to thrive and breed in this society. It won't last, for better and for worse.

Last edited by The_Toecutter on Tue 21 Apr 2020, 01:44:32, edited 1 time in total.

The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson

vtsnowedin wrote:I find it annoying that part 14 of this thread was locked in the middle of one of it's busiest days and a page and a half can't be quoted or commented on. Is there some structural reason why locking a busy thread can't be locked at two days previous to leave current posts available for quoting and comment?

Based on my experience with database systems, it would probably involve some sort of maintenance re MOVING that two days of data to the new (and unlocked) part of the thread, which involves more work/time. Unless there's some sort of automated process re maintaining the sections which could be modified to behave differently, every time, of course.

(I'm hypothesizing here, knowing it's a SQL system, but not knowing anything about the underlying details -- so I certainly could be wrong).

Most of the time I don't care that much but in this case we hit such an interesting snag with that unique WTI futures rollover position, it's kind of a shame to have the conversation broken up in the middle like that.

Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.

one of the issues is that the decreased demand for products means the refineries are just not buying and are woefully underutilized. Many of the petroleum by-products are easier to store than crude oil. A novel solution would be for the US government to guaranty purchase of refinery runs at a price discounted to future predicted product price but high enough to entice the refineries to pull out full stops and make available temporary storage on federal properties. It would take awhile for this to catch up but it could help alleviate some of problems in the production - pipeline - sales chain.

rockdoc123 wrote:one of the issues is that the decreased demand for products means the refineries are just not buying and are woefully underutilized. Many of the petroleum by-products are easier to store than crude oil. A novel solution would be for the US government to guaranty purchase of refinery runs at a price discounted to future predicted product price but high enough to entice the refineries to pull out full stops and make available temporary storage on federal properties. It would take awhile for this to catch up but it could help alleviate some of problems in the production - pipeline - sales chain.

Trump tweeted:"We will never let the great U.S. Oil & Gas Industry down. I have instructed the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of the Treasury to formulate a plan which will make funds available so that these very important companies and jobs will be secured long into the future!"

vtsnowedin wrote:I find it annoying that part 14 of this thread was locked in the middle of one of it's busiest days and a page and a half can't be quoted or commented on. Is there some structural reason why locking a busy thread can't be locked at two days previous to leave current posts available for quoting and comment?

Threads are locked by post count, not date. I often leave the slow growing ones unlocked for a few days so there are a number of posts on the first page of the new thread.In the case of this thread there was a glitch in the system that added 9 "Ghost Messages" to the thread so when I split it the system told me the first page would have 12 messages on it but it turned out to be just the last 3. All this stuff has to be done by hand by me or Newfie and is a royal PITA to undo today just so I can redo it in two more days. You want to start sending cash to pay the moderators I am all in favor, but I do this in my spare time as a volunteer so Sorry for any Inconvenience!

That is all.

I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

The June contract is also falling today. Yesterday it was $20. Today it's $13.

The June contract for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) was trading down 35% on the day at $13.21 at 12:13pm EST. The June futures contract for WTI, or CLM20, fell by $7.20 on Tuesday, to $13.20, in line with WTI spot prices. The spot prices yesterday were closely linked to the May futures contract, which were also in the red on Monday. Today, however, on the day that this CLK20 futures contract is set to expire, WTI prices are tracking the June futures instead.

.one shouldn't worry too much about the Nymex WTI quoted price it's a crappy index used as a plaything by speculators from the financial Times on USO futures "As of Friday, the fund held the equivalent of 146.5m barrels of WTI crude futures for June delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange, a division of CME Group."

for memory the total oil production of the US is 13M/B.d , only a fraction of which is Cushing related

there is , what, twenty time more barrels being bought and sold than really exist many of the investors don't even understand the mechanics of what they are investing or the industry itself.........suckers !!!!!!

vtsnowedin wrote:I wonder if those 10,000 commercial jets that have been parked have had their fuel tanks all topped off? That would take about 18 million barrels of jet fuel.

Extremely unlikely, the airlines only buy fuel immediately before departure, I would imagine that it would be considered a hazard to have a plane fully fuelled up waiting with nowhere to go.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.:AnonymousOur whole economy is based on planned obsolescence.Planned obsolescence, one of the largest contributors to the man made element of climate change, but the one least discussed: dolanbaker

vtsnowedin wrote:I wonder if those 10,000 commercial jets that have been parked have had their fuel tanks all topped off? That would take about 18 million barrels of jet fuel.

Does jet fuel age better than gasoline? Depending on how long the vast majority of them sit (and perhaps MANY months or even a couple years or so for some), topping them off might not be what the airlines would want to do.

Surely they have enough experience with aging fuel re maintenance cycles, etc. that they know the score on that.

Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.